The beauty of compromise
An excess of secularism may be as problematic as bigotry, whereas pragmatism is in salutary contrast to both of those, writes Ramachandra Guha.
In September 2004, the French government formally banned the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls in schools and colleges run by the State. The decision was opposed by most French Muslims, but supported by an overwhelming majority of the citizens as a whole. The tradition of French republicanism is robustly secular; against King and Church in equal measure. Any sign of religious affiliation in public institutions is frowned upon.
The French authorities imposed the ban for two main reasons. The first argument they made was on the basis of gender justice. They claimed that the headscarf was a sign of women’s subordination within the home and the family. The second argument rested on the case for assimilation. The headscarf marked the wearer out as Muslim, and hence something foreign and alien to the culture of the French nation.
The ban on the headscarf was issued as part of a general edict forbidding all religious signs and symbols in State-run schools. So Sikh boys were barred from wearing the turban, Jewish boys from wearing the skull cap, and Christian children from wearing the crucifix.
But it was evident all along that the particular target of the ban was Muslims. There had, in recent decades, been substantial immigration of Muslims from North Africa. The new migrants tended to live in separate neighbourhoods, limiting their interactions with the host population to the workplace. This ghettoization was deemed bad for them, and bad for French culture as a whole. The ban on the headscarf was very clearly an attempt to hasten them into the mainstream.
Reading of the controversy in France, I felt at the time that a ban could be counter-productive, encouraging parents to withdraw girls from State-run schools and send them to religious schools instead (or educate them at home). In any case, I thought, it was an odd form of nationalism (or secularism) which insisted that all citizens must, apart from speaking the same language and swearing allegiance to the same flag, also dress exactly alike. So long as an artefact of clothing is not offensive (which a headscarf or turban clearly isn’t) and can be worn alongside a regular school uniform (as a headscarf and a turban clearly can) there seemed to be no real reason to forbid a student from wearing it.
• A genuine secularism, please
• Muslim count: Useful controversy
The question of whether or not to allow the headscarf in schools and colleges is also hotly debated in some other countries, such as Turkey (as discussed in Orhan Pamuk’s memorable novel, Snow). In France itself, after imposing the ban in schools, the authorities appear to have - with or without the pretext of the law - extended it to other spheres as well. An essay in The Guardian reports that women wearing headscarves in France have been forbidden to vote, not allowed to open bank accounts, and in some cases, even barred from their own wedding ceremonies! A French businesswoman of Muslim origin, wearing a scarf along with her suit, went for a holiday with her family, only to be turned away by the apartment into which they had been booked on the grounds that she was sporting “an instrument of women’s submission and oppression”.
A human rights activist observes of these cases that “this is clear discrimination by people who wrongly use the school law to claim that France is a secular state that doesn’t allow headscarves in public places”. A history professor involved in the ‘French Collective against Islamophobia’ remarked (in terms that would be very recognizable to Indians) that “what people have to understand is that the concept of French secularism is not anti-religion per se, it is supposed to be about respecting all religions”.
In January 2005, some months after the French imposed their ban, I was speaking at the University of Calicut. The university is located in the district of Mallapuram, which is one of the handful of Muslim majority districts in India outside the Kashmir Valley (the others lie along the West Bengal-Bangladesh border). The Kerala Muslims, known locally as Mapillas, were converted not by the sword but by trade and commerce. They date to at least the eighth century AD, and have (in all senses) a substantial presence in the state, with particular influence in business and politics. Where Muslims in some other southern states claim Urdu as their mother tongue, the Mapillas have a deep identification with the language of Kerala, Malayalam. (Arguably the greatest Malayalam novelist was a Mapilla, Vaikom Muhammad Bashir).
My talk at the University of Calicut was held in a gloomy auditorium, but the composition of the audience lit up the event for me. For, of those who attended the lecture at least half were women. This was not in itself surprising, since rates of female literacy in Kerala are close to 100 per cent. What was especially notable was that most of these women (or young girls) were Muslim, their faith marked out for me by the black headscarf they wore, the self-same headscarf that had just been forbidden in schools in France.
In that old Western democracy, the scarf was seen by the State as oppressive, and hence banned in public. In this new Eastern nation, the scarf was actually liberating. It permitted these girls to acquire a university education denied to their mothers and grandmothers. For the scarf denoted a certain propriety and modesty; by wearing it, these girls could reassure their parents that they were going to college to study rather than to socialize with members of the other sex.
In Calicut, the headscarf is acceptable, but a few hundred miles up the west coast of India, it apparently is not. Thus, in recent months, some colleges in the district of Mangalore have forbidden its use. Mangalore is a stronghold of Hindutva organizations, which have been emboldened by the coming to power in Karnataka of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Earlier in the year, they attacked girls for going to pubs; now, they seek to prevent girls who wear headscarves from attending college. In the first case, they protested against an alleged scantiness of clothing; in the second case, against an alleged excess of clothing. Any stick is apparently good enough, so long as it can be used to intimidate the minorities.
It is necessary to make some distinctions here. The burqa, or full veil, is oppressive and demeaning: by hiding a woman’s face and eyes, it marks her out as subordinate to (and under the control of) men. But to cover only one’s head is another matter. In India, at any rate, the practice is not restricted to Muslim women. Hindu women often cover their heads with their saris, whether to keep out the sun, enter a temple, or convey respect to elders. Sikh men and boys are obliged by their faith to wear a turban, while many Hindu and Muslim peasants voluntarily wear one. Had their students appeared before them in a burqa, some teachers in Calicut University might have been embarrassed or offended; clad as they were, no one in the university, whether teacher, student or staff, could in any way have seen it as other than normal and wholly acceptable.
For me, the ubiquity of the headscarf in Calicut University is a perfect illustration of what Mahatma Gandhi liked to call “the beauty of compromise”. The pragmatism of the Malayali stands in salutary contrast both to the thoroughgoing secularism of the French and to the narrow bigotry of the Hindutva-wadis.
Filed under
Cite this article
Ramachandra Guha (2009) ‘The beauty of compromise’, India Together, 10 October 2009. https://indiatogether.org/compro-op-ed/
14 reader responses
Add a response
Whatisinaname · 10 October 2009
WOW! Some interesting argumets. Let us see what these are: "In this new Eastern nation, the scarf was actually liberating. It permitted these girls to acquire a university education denied to their mothers and grandmothers" PERMITTED. Mark the word. Permitted by their elders, MEN. So if the iron stronghold is lessened by men it becomes liberation. Right? Sure it is better to have education than not have it but to call this liberation is twisting the fact to label this community as liberals, votaries of equal rights and so on. Rich indeed! "It is necessary to make some distinctions here. The burqa, or full veil, is oppressive and demeaning: by hiding a woman's face and eyes, it marks her out as subordinate to (and under the control of) men. But to cover only one's head is another matter." Another one - Coming from a Man. He decides that covering one's head is not demeaning but burqa is. Why is Burqa demeaning? Why is covering head not demeaning? Do men also cover head in public except Sikhs? " Any stick is apparently good enough, so long as it can be used to intimidate the minorities." WOW! Clubbing women going to pubs with burqa and saying both are minority bashing!!! Where is minority in first case? Are women minority? If not how can you club women going to pub and burqa? Agreed it is not liberal and I would agree with you if you said so. But you just can't club the two together. Shows your Bias. Let me ask another question. These PRAGMATIC muslims - Are they OK with their women going to the pub? You are SO BIASED that you have to bring BJP baiting, even when it is not relevant. Just for records sake, I am anti-BJP. I am anti-politicians.
ANOOPAM MODAK · 10 October 2009
The crux of the whole issue is asserting one's dress code, which ought not to be religious, caste, creed or community based. A country's inhabitant is recognized by the dress of its indigenous people, while the inhabitants of the other countries have the right to retain the identity in respect of dress, which of course must not be vulgar. But, when it concerns school uniform, there ought to be uniform dress code for all as a matter of discipline and must not be construed as oppression of a particular religion, caste, race, creed or community. There's a need for revolutionary change in the mindset of the people towards this end, as it entails the society at large.
Vidhya · 11 October 2009
I agree entirely. I too felt that imposing a ban on an apparel of dress that does not impinge in anyway on the other's freedom, or even on the other's sense of propriety was carrying secularism too far. This too symbolises a different kind of bigotry, secular bigotry if you can call it that!
dden · 11 October 2009
The particular target of the French ban was Muslims is no surprise because it is from that community that the most resistance was being anticipated. Not wrongly. If you were to impose the rule would you expect the most stringent resistance to come from some other community?
Abhishek Jain · 12 October 2009
Amartya Sen, in his book "Argumentative Indian", has briefly addressed exactly the same issue by discussing how Indian definition of secularism contrasts with that of French, 'tolerance to all' vs 'prohibition to all'.
samir · 13 October 2009
One important fact that underlies this debate is the issue of homogenization and its importance in statecraft and democracy. While Islamic states have ensured this through Koranic and Sharia edict, the West has relied on liberalism modernism etc. and for which they fought with the Church. Now that the neighbours are facing each other, one representing the erstwhile dominant colonial ideology and another present one, this is anything but surprising. The struggle is for imposing rules of dialogue. Till now the liberalism of West relying on the raw strength of technological and economic prowess tolerated the world view of Islamic societies for various reasons. Now it is no more possible to ignore and the struggle is getting more and more personal; though historians dig so deep in books that they fail to read what is written on walls! So Mr. Guhas analysis is fixed in a frame that has changed greatly, Perhaps one can hazard to suggest learned people of his tribe to take up issues like how this erstwhile colonial ideology despite treating minorities in such a devilish way in country after country speak with such hypocritical stand on culture and human rights and succeed so greatly.
Vispi Jokhi · 13 October 2009
Well Gandhi always believed in such compromises which made him plead for hindustani as a language. His plea for the majority to accommodate the minorities was to be seen in the same context, but was not and probably led to his assassination. I think issues of religion are very sentimental and prone to exploitation. So we need to tread the ground carefully and practice the live-and-let-live principles.
Miasaheb · 14 October 2009
Perfect article to support Islamic fundamentalism in the name of secularism. Prof Guha would not have reacted similarly if Hindu women students of a north Indian university attended his lecture with 'ghunghats' covering their heads. Writings and activities of people like Prof Guha had encouraged the Islamists to attack Taslima in Hyderabad (none punished) and ultimately kicking her out of the country.
Vir Narain · 18 October 2009
The situation regarding assertions of religious identity is not the same in France - and indeed the West - as it is in India. Spectacular developments in transportation and communications, and the compulsions of global economics, have led to massive migrations from developing nations to the West. These same developments have ensured that migrant communities no longer have to "cut the umbilical cord" from their parent cultures and communities. Thus they retain the 'emotional citizenship' of their parent countries. As the immigrant communities grow, they inevitably acquire numerical weight in the democracies to which they have moved. Some religions/cultures - the two are inextricably mixed - find assimilation in the host country easier than others. Those who belong to the less miscible cultures, finding themselves at odds with local culture and customs, take recourse to assertions of separate identity, to appeals for religious and cultural rights. As they reach a numerically "critical mass", these claims become more strident. Vote-bank politics sets in, straining the secular nature of the polity of the host country. It is quite clear that issues of diet and dress are being used by certain religious communities to assert and sharpen their separate identities. In acquiescing to these - which are basically cultural and not religious issues - the state compromises on its secular character and sharpens social divisions. The problem of secularism in the West, then, is how to cope with increasing social stress caused by immigrations from insular cultures. The Indian Situation : The situation in India, however, is different. Unlike the West, India has lived with ethnic, religious and cultural diversity for centuries; although it is this heterogeneity that led to its dismemberment at the end of the colonial era. Thanks to the staunch secularism of leaders like Nehru and - in his own, unique way - Gandhi, post-partition India adopted a secular constitution. The question of 'emotional citizenship' is not an issue. Nor, except perhaps at election time, is the question of separate identity an issue. Secularism is under threat in the West. The firmness of France in defending it needs to be emulated by others.
mb · 18 October 2009
That each region has an identity is a source of comfort to its inhabitants. Such identity can be religious or cultural and is a great help in defining and reassuring its members with its stability. Having that sense disturbed by a group of immigrants can be galling, particularly when that group was first let inside for reasons humane. The right thing to do would be for the immigrant not to disturb the nation that offered it sanctuary, irrespective of their burgeoning numbers or their economic strength. And France is not an immigrant nation, say like the US. I am not a bigot, this is a simple application of common sense, particularly when the host nation has been a haven rather than a repressive state. I am sure that such is the case with France which has admitted not only Muslims but also Sri Lankan Tamils, offering them sanctuary against hostile home regimes and societies or poor economic choices. The least that the beneficiaries could do would be to respect their hosts social norms which are anyway looser that their own. I also feel that the very comparision of state between Malabar and France is wrong, the Muslim in Malabar has been assimilated into its cultures and power structures over a few centuries, moreover they came in as conquerors, they set the rules. As to your handling of the veil issue, let us be clear that the veil is and has been a restrictive fabric for women, irrespective of where they live, and it makes little difference as to whether the eyes are hidden or aren't. In fact you do see veiled women in India and not only in Malabar. And covering the head with the saree is endemic to a few North Indian communities too, the social intent being the same as in the Muslim case. It is an extension of the imaginary chastity belt and given the heat and humidity in Malabar and Mangalore or the rest of India, it makes even little sense as an adornment of security. And it calls for a lot of attar, normal perfume would not do. Reinterpreting the veil as a measure of security seems downright silly and uncalled for, from a writer of your stature. Unlike your other essays which are generally well argued and are a pleasure to read, this is a case of misguided liberalism and muddle headed thinking. The French have reason to not let their nation be submerged under immigrant cultures, particularly when these cultures are backward when viewed against the best of human ideals. It makes more sense when you remember that the the best of human ideals have come to flower and fruition from that great nation, and that they struggled long and hard to get to it. I guess they are justified in clinging to that great liberal tradition. Sitting here in India sans the historicity of that tradition, it is easy to see simplistic parallels that seem to make sense. I would say that it makes more sense for the immigrants to integrate into the host nations culture, India and Indians have gained by assimilating themselves into American culture and tradition where they vie with the best. If Muslims cannot do that, they should get out or keep quiet. Oh, and the same applies to the Punjabi and his kirpan or any other cultural specifics that have little place in modern societies. Nations should do well to reject them and aim for their death and and as early as possible.
Pawan Kumar Gulati · 20 October 2009
Pragmatism is rightly needed as a state policy as well as the spirit of secularism. In fact, french secularism is bereft of appreciation of the 'other'. It over-emphasises homogeneity in a globalised multicultural world. One perceives it as secular fundamentalism. The best example of such pragmatic tolerance was provided by Guru Teg Bahadur, the 9th Guru of the Sikhs who sacrificed his life for the right of the 'other'(Kashmiri Pandits) to be different i.e. wearing tilk and janju, though the Guru himself did not believe in such ritualism.
Akshaya Kumar · 21 October 2009
The response by mb is excellent!I too believe that if you go to a foreign land in search of greener pastures, you cannot have your ways always.In India, all sorts of backwardness by different communities is, in fact, encouraged by our politicians in their narrow self interest. For e.g Sonia Gandhi's covering her head with her saree if she has to address people in rural north India.
Mahesha Prasad · 5 November 2009
Another example of 'selective secularism'. Does the writer Mr Guha has time to write about rights of Kashmiri Hindus, Bangladeshi Hindus and Malaya Hindus? Perhaps no, because they are the genuine 'others', who are entitled by the 'holy book' to be persecuted. I am not telling this for the argument sake, I do genuinely believe that compromise is the best solution. But only thing I don't understand is - Are Muslims barred from compromising? Why cant they compromise on their head scarf? Does compromising head scarf harm them in any way?
Arun · 25 November 2009
Coming from the particular milieu of Malabar, I am inclined to agree with Ram that most young Muslim women there do admit that they find wearing the Hijab rather reassuring. But equally it must be added that it is yet a response to the prevailing conservativeness of the Muslim community there - certainly not as illiberal as elsewhere, but still quite restrictive. Given the opportunity, most of these young women would choose not wear their headscarves. Indeed most typically do not, when they move away for higher education in larger cities outside the state. The Malabar Muslims have an outstanding tradition of progressiveness, and it is rather worrying how there has been a clear increase in the wearing of headscarves over the last couple of decades. In that context, 'the ubiquity of the headscarf in Calicut University' may in fact hides a slightly less idyllic reality than what one may assume at first look; a reality not all that different from the one that obtains 'a few hundred miles up the west coast'.